Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2011

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I congratulate my colleague from Minnesota who has the dual experience of being both a prosecutor and a woman who understands how important these issues are. We men try to join in, but women know this so well and so strongly, whether from their own personal experiences, friends they know or--as in the case of the Senator from Minnesota who has done a great job on this--from their professional experience as well.

I care a lot about this issue. I carried the Violence Against Women Act, the first bill, in 1994. Then-Senator Biden put it together in 1992. Senator Boxer carried it when she was elected to the Senate. They asked me to carry it, and we got it passed.

It has changed the world. VAWA has changed the world. It used to be, before VAWA, a woman would show up bloodied and bruised at a police station, and the police officer--who had no training and no knowledge of what to do, not his or her fault--would say: Go home. It is a family matter.

Now, of course, we have laws, we have training, we have shelters, and women are far more protected.

We were much too close, in 1994, to the old rule of thumb that a husband could beat his wife with a stick, provided it was no thicker than his thumb. We are much further away from that because of this law, and it makes a great deal of sense.

But similar to any good and important law that has changed the world, we have to keep updating it. We have to keep learning from what has happened and make it better and stronger and tougher and covering more ground. We need it.

Still, despite VAWA's good acts, in my home State, on Long Island alone, during 2009 and 2010, there were 19,417 cases in which local, county or State police officers were called to the scene of a domestic violence complaint. That is just in two counties in one State in this country.

That is why I am so glad to see Members on both sides of the aisle have finally seen that saving the lives of women is, once again, above politics.

It has been a pleasure, over the years, to work with my colleagues, and I wish to thank Chairman Leahy and Senator Crapo for their great leadership. It is truly a bipartisan effort, with 61 cosponsors, and that is how it has been in the past. It has always been bipartisan. It is a tribute not only to Chairman Leahy but to my female colleagues, many of whom have spoken out this morning and have been constant champions of the Violence Against Women Act.

So this bill should be an easy one. The Violence Against Women Act should be low-hanging fruit. Even in a disputatious Congress, this should pass easily. It passed unanimously--Democrats and Republicans--in 2000 and 2005. Recognizing today's tougher times, as well as the successes with which our past efforts have already been met, Chairman Leahy and Senator Crapo cut spending by 20 percent and reduced duplicative programs. So you would not think there would be opposition, but, unfortunately, there has been.

So this fact is clear: It would be unacceptable to show less support now in 2012 for our national commitment to stop violence and abuse and to protect women against this plague than we have over the last 20 years. We should not step backward. We should not halt progress. ``Replace'' is the operative word. What has been offered is not a substitute or an improvement for the Violence Against Women Act. The so-called alternative would take violence against women and replace it with a different program.

This program has worked. It needs improvements. That is why we are here. But it is has worked. You do not start over for ideological or political reasons. Most notably in the act from my colleagues across the aisle, the word ``women'' has been taken out of the program that forms the cornerstone of the Violence Against Women Act and the word has been replaced with ``victim.'' No one here would argue against the principle that all violent crimes, all domestic crimes are tragic and serious. But this so-called substitute negates centuries of women's experience that proves that violence against women, especially violence caused by spouses and partners and family members, is a uniquely pernicious and entrenched practice, one that has not even always been illegal. There was never a rule of thumb that governed the size of a stick that wives would use to beat their husbands. That sums it up in a nutshell. Men were never banned from juries. Men were never banned from police forces and prosecutors' offices. It is this horrific and shameful history to which we responded in 1994 when we first crafted the Violence Against Women Act.

There is another point to be made. Anyone who respects the proper role of the Federal Government in fighting crime should recognize that it is entirely rational for us to limit our police powers and funding in this area to a particular type of crime, one that has civil rights implications, one that has been hard for States and localities to prosecute without special support and training. That is why there is no substitute for the Violence Against Women Act.

There are a number of priorities that have been included in the bill that I have cared a lot about.

First is making sure that sexual assault victims do not have to pay for their own forensic exams. While the last reauthorization took some steps to fix this problem, we go further.

Second, VAWA, having contributed immensely to our understanding and prevention of domestic violence, has been reinvigorated and retargeted at sexual assault crimes. Many aspects of the new bill will improve the reporting, law enforcement training, and victim support.

Third, it expands programs that are available to victims and law enforcement in rural and underserved areas. This is extremely important to upstate New York, which has one of the largest rural populations in the country.

Fourth, as I mentioned, Senator Leahy and Senator Crapo should be applauded for including more oversight and accountability for programs in this bill and finding a way to trim the authorization by 20 percent by consolidating programs where it makes sense.

To make the continued need for this bill concrete personal, I would like to point out one massive success story in New York that has been made possible by VAWA. There are many others, but I want to point out one.

On Long Island, thousands of women each year seek help from the Nassau County Coalition Against Domestic Violence. The coalition offers confidential, specialized services for victims of domestic and dating violence, elder abuse, children who witness domestic violence, and sexual assault survivors. They have a 24-hour hotline, group and individual counseling, legal advocacy, Safe Home emergency housing, and various other outreach programs. Without VAWA, these services would be drastically cut back.

Specifically, the coalition receives $650,000 over 2 1/2 years through a VAWA legal assistance to victims grant, $38,000 through a VAWA crisis intervention grant, and $12,000 through a rape advocacy grant. These last two may not sound like large sums of money, but they go a long way toward helping prevent domestic violence and dealing with it when it, unfortunately, happens.

The reauthorization of VAWA is more important than ever. In today's economy, local municipalities, as we know, in New York and throughout the country are slashing their social service budgets and contracts right and left. Without VAWA, many groups such as the Nassau County coalition would be left bereft and all of the good work they have done over the years would no longer be there. Without agencies such as this one, where will a sexually assaulted Levittown woman turn for help? Well, I do not want to find out. I, for one, will do everything in my power to ensure that day never comes by supporting this VAWA, not some new law that has not been tested.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source